Technical Rules Of Evidence Act Do Not Apply To Departmental Enquiries: Supreme Court

"Departmental enquiries are not crimi nal trials. So long as a fair opportunity is afforded and the conclusion is based on relevant material having probative value, the Court would not interfere," Supreme Court, in a significant ruling dated May 8, 2026, held that the technical and strict rules of the Indian Evidence Act do not apply to departmental proceedings, where the applicable standard of proof is the preponderance of probabilities.

A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R. Mahadevan observed that judicial review under Article 226 is not an appeal against a disciplinary authority’s decision and courts should refrain from reappreciating evidence unless the findings are patently perverse.

The case originated from the dismissal of a Jharkhand Police constable, Ranjan Kumar, who was found to have clandestinely secured a second appointment in the Bihar Police under the name 'Santosh Kumar' using forged credentials. While a Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court had upheld his dismissal, a Division Bench later quashed the order on the grounds that the department had failed to examine material witnesses from Bihar, leading the State of Jharkhand to appeal before the top court.

The primary question before the court was whether a High Court, in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, can reappreciate evidence to disturb concurrent findings of fact in a departmental inquiry. The court was also called upon to determine if the non-examination of certain witnesses or formal proof of documents vitiates disciplinary action when relevant material with probative value is available.

Departmental Enquiries Are Not Criminal Trials

The Supreme Court emphasized that domestic inquiries must be distinguished from criminal trials in terms of procedural rigidity and the standard of proof required. The bench noted that so long as the principles of natural justice are followed and the delinquent is given a fair opportunity to defend themselves, the findings of the inquiry officer should generally be respected.

The court reiterated that any material which is "logically probative for a prudent mind" is admissible in departmental proceedings. It observed that the respondent was served with a charge memorandum, furnished with relevant materials, and permitted to submit his defense at every stage, satisfying the requirements of procedural fairness.

"Departmental enquiries are not criminal trials. So long as a fair opportunity is afforded and the conclusion is based on relevant material having probative value, the Court would not interfere."

Limited Scope of Judicial Review Under Article 226

The Court criticized the Division Bench for transgressing the settled parameters of judicial review by acting as an appellate authority. It held that the High Court’s role is limited to checking whether the inquiry was conducted by a competent authority according to the prescribed procedure and whether the findings are based on some evidence.

The bench relied on several precedents, including B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, to clarify that the power of judicial review is meant to ensure fair treatment, not to ensure that the authority's conclusion is "correct" in the eye of the court. It noted that the High Court should not substitute its own opinion for that of the disciplinary authority.

"The findings of fact recorded by the disciplinary authority are not to be interfered with by the Court as a matter of course, particularly while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."

Forensic Evidence Establishes Dual Identity

To resolve the dispute regarding the respondent's identity, the Supreme Court had previously directed an independent enquiry by the Bihar Police. The subsequent report, which included forensic fingerprint analysis and biometric comparisons, conclusively established that 'Ranjan Kumar' and 'Santosh Kumar' were the same individual.

The court noted that this objective scientific material substantially dislodged the respondent's defense of mistaken identity. The variance in parentage and surnames was found to be part of a "manipulated identity trail" rather than proof of being separate persons.

"Forensic comparison of fingerprints, biometric records, and photographs established that 'Ranjan Kumar' and 'Santosh Kumar' were one and the same person."

Police Integrity and Fraud in Public Employment

The bench underscored that members of a disciplined force are expected to maintain the highest degree of integrity and honesty. It held that fraud committed at the threshold of entry strikes at the very root of public employment and cannot be condoned as a mere procedural lapse.

The Court observed that allowing such an individual to remain in service would be detrimental to institutional discipline and public confidence. The bench further noted that the acts of impersonation and forgery prima facie disclosed the commission of cognizable offences under the Indian Penal Code.

"Public employment, particularly in the police service, cannot be converted into an instrument of fraud. If individuals entrusted with enforcing the law themselves secure entry into service through deception... it would seriously erode the rule of law."

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Division Bench's judgment and restoring the order of dismissal against the respondent. Invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court also quashed the respondent's appointment in the Bihar Police and directed the initiation of criminal proceedings against him for the alleged forgery and fraud.

Date of Decision: May 8, 2026